Why I Blast Email
[1/11] from: Carl:rebol at: 11-Jul-2003 11:42
Sorry guys. I disagree. Email is evil.
I've been using email now for 25 years. It was once useful to me, but
it's really a problem for me these days.
It could be that I'm just biased because I get a thousand spams a day
(good thing I've got REBOL filtering it for me, our I'd spend all day on it.)
Maybe I'm also biased because email programs like Outlook and Eudora
open emails and fetch http image links without my permission, so I cannot
use them. Maybe I'm biased because our biz contacts and lawyers send
us confidential docs unencrypted, and I constantly have to remind them not to.
Maybe it is the fact that my investors call and ask what I thought of a doc that
I never received because email is not a reliable delivery system.
YES, email is as good as the general delivery postal box at the bottom of
my road. In that regard it has its place but, email should *not* be the driver
of business processes, workflow, or even public discussion (ask why
weblogs have become so popular over the last few years).
NO, email is not as good as the telephone or a good Internet-base
communications system.
IMMHO,
-Carl
[2/11] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 11-Jul-2003 14:09
Just another $0.02...
(I've been covered up in recent weeks due to a change of job within the
company. Ergo, I've been mostly in lurk mode. Hence my perspective...)
On Friday, Jul 11, 2003, at 13:42 US/Central, [Carl--rebol--com] wrote:
> YES, email is as good as the general delivery postal box at the bottom
> of
> my road. In that regard it has its place but, email should *not* be
> the driver
> of business processes, workflow, or even public discussion (ask why
> weblogs have become so popular over the last few years).
>
$0.01 : I'd agree with the remarks re "business processes" and
workflow
, but
reserve judgement re "public discussion" unless the replacement
is
equally public and persistent.
> NO, email is not as good as the telephone or a good Internet-base
> communications system.
$0.01 : "Good" is a value-judgement term, highly dependent on the
specific
measures of quality which one considers important. Again, I'd
agree
that email is not as "good" wrt interactivity, reliability, and
confidentiality (when needed). However, a chat-based
interactive
environment is certainly *not* as "good" as email wrt
accessibility to
the widest range of participants, including those who'd like to
follow a thread off-line (or go back and refer to content
later),
those behind firewalls, a sufficiently diverse geographic
spread (so
that not everyone is awake at the same time, etc.).
Optimizing for one measure of "goodness" frequently/usually pessimizes
over
many others...
-jn-
[3/11] from: pwoodward::cncdsl::com at: 11-Jul-2003 15:07
Carl -
I agree, email definitely has it's problems. Every couple of weeks I add a
few new keywords to my email filters to keep my in-box from getting too
swamped to work with. However, any solution to the problems with email will
have to match it's core strengths:
1> Ubiquity. It cannot be understated. To many people Internet == email.
2> UI Metaphore. On a broad scale people are familiar with email programs.
You've hit the nail on the head when you say it's not terribly good for
threaded discussion, or even secure communications. It also, perhaps due to
it's ubiquity, makes it a great target for spam. I don't really have too
much of a problem with rich email (HTML, images, etc), as one frequently
must balance usability with security.
I've been researching building an email proxy server - using both SMTP and
IMAP4 interfaces it would run locally, and Outlook (or any other email app)
could use it. However it's delivery mechanism would be managed via a P2P
network based on the JXTA protocol. It would be relatively easy to encrypt
everything that passes through it using PKI. Instead of automatically
sending email over the P2P network, it would first request the public key of
the recipient - that would then be used to exchange a session key which
would be used to send the message over the wire. By the time it hits your
in-box, it would have been encrypted and decrypted transparently. The proxy
would be the email store (IMAP4) - and eventually it'd be ideal to allow the
P2P synch of the proxy (say between your home system and work system -
keeping your folders in sync and your addressbook, etc).
It's going to take forever to get people off of email!
- Porter
[4/11] from: Carl:rebol at: 11-Jul-2003 13:55
Good comments. Thanks for sharing them.
As you know, I don't usually state my opinions in public like this.
Not my policy. So you know this one is a sore spot. Email is next to
useless for me, and I don't use the telegraph either.
Don't get me wrong. Email has its place for "general delivery", just
as postal snailmail has its place. We still get and send postal mail.
We still get and send email.
New mediums usually don't replace the old ones. Eg. TV did not replace
radio, VCR's did not replace movie theaters, etc. etc. There are a few
exceptions. The telegraph is dead (although Morse code lives on, if
you are a shortwaver).
Also, I don't think the comments made about the problems of chat-based
interactive environments are totally valid. In IOS (AltME, Groove, and
other systems too) you can read offline and persistent messages work
nicely for that "diverse geographic spread" (the time zone "sleep"
factor). Granted, some systems still need to get offline posting
capabilities, but I think that's a minor job to do.
Enjoyable dicussion tho. A worthy topic.
-Carl
[5/11] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 11-Jul-2003 16:23
Hi Porter,
<< It's going to take forever to get people off of email! >>
I disagree. People will move, even from something as entrenched as
wired telephone service, if the right thing comes along. They didn't
move for the first cellular/mobile phones, but they are now. They
moved *to* email quickly; I think they can move *from* it quickly. It
will just take the right thing. At this point, there are too many
incompatible options though.
-- Gregg
[6/11] from: ed:brittlestar at: 11-Jul-2003 19:27
quickly
is a very relative term...
>>They moved *to* email quickly
Didn't it take roughly 5 or 6 years ('90 - '96) before email really took off
in the mainstream (corp. & personal use)?
It has taken longer than that to move from VHS to DVD as the dominant format
in the US, and that took a lot of pushing.
>> I think they can move *from* it quickly.
With communication enablers, I think it's often harder to switch than it is
to adopt. As with most technologies-- programming languages included-- in
order for the masses to switch, the benefits must substantially exceed the
cost/pain of migration. It's a really high bar of perception that must be
cleared.
Usually what happens instead is the new technology encompasses most of the
basic needs/features of the legacy technology (often in the form of
bloat
). This enables users, who really don't care a whit about bloat, to
be more easily persuaded.
The common story is: Start-up company go to market with next-generation
great idea, let's say... "video email over the surplus digital TV spectrum."
The big corporations let this upstart blaze the trail, found the market. If
it takes off, the big corps cherry-pick the best ideas from the start-up and
incorporate them as "features" in the next major release of their own
software.
I definitely wouldn't bet on email disappearing for a long time. Sure, I can
see it evolving though.
// Ed O'Connor
- who's just woken from a long REBOL slumber
The early bird gets the worm, but the _second_ rat gets the cheese.
[7/11] from: andreas:bolka:gmx at: 12-Jul-2003 16:34
Friday, July 11, 2003, 10:55:09 PM, Carl wrote:
> Good comments. Thanks for sharing them.
> As you know, I don't usually state my opinions in public like this.
> Not my policy. So you know this one is a sore spot. Email is next to
> useless for me, and I don't use the telegraph either.
I know, I know - you don't like email :) But nevertheless:
You seem to be using REBOL to send email (your mails do not contain an
X-Mailer header, but an "X-REBOL: Link 1.0.5.3.1 http://WWW.REBOL.COM"
header).
Now if you would add a very simple functionality to your mailing
reblet, those of us using mail clients with threading functionality
would really benefit.
Your mailer does not send an "In-Reply-To" header in mails that are
replies to other mails. There are clients that make use of this header
to enable a nice, threaded view mode. Adding that header is rather
easy: if you reply to message A just read the value of the
Message-ID
header of message A and use that exact value for the
In-Reply-To header. Example follows.
-- snip --
Message A:
Message-ID: <[web-112615--compkarori--co--xy]>
Message B, an reply to message A:
In-Reply-To: <[web-112615--compkarori--co--xy]>
-- snap --
Just a suggestion :)
--
Best regards,
Andreas mailto:[andreas--bolka--gmx--net]
[8/11] from: ed:brittlestar at: 12-Jul-2003 12:07
[Slightly Off Topic]
Spam has basically ruined email for many of us, the digital cognoscenti ;^),
but a recent study of 2,500 workers suggests that most folks don't share our
headaches-- not yet, anyway:
While spam (unsolicited email) is a growing problem for personal email
accounts and for the Information Technology specialists and Internet Service
Providers who are trying to stanch its flow, little spam reaches the
on-the-job inboxes of American workers.
http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/reports.asp?Report=79&Section=ReportLevel
1&Field=Level1ID&ID=346
The report provides some worthwhile datapoints for anyone that wants to
grasp the ubiquity of email in US business.
Other related links:
The Spam Problem: How Bad Is It?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,762731,00.asp
The Email List-Owner News Source
http://emailuniverse.com/list-news/
-- Ed
[9/11] from: gchiu:compkarori at: 13-Jul-2003 9:27
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:07:12 -0400
"Ed O'Connor" <[ed--brittlestar--com]> wrote:
>[Slightly Off Topic]
>
>Spam has basically ruined email for many of us, the
>digital cognoscenti ;^),
and is a good thing for improving the prospects of IOS as
an alternative communications medium :)
--
Graham Chiu
http://www.compkarori.com/vanilla/
[10/11] from: ed:brittlestar at: 12-Jul-2003 21:46
Ahem...
And one simple technique that can be employed to inhibit spam is to remove
the explicit email address inserted in the email body when replying to
someone's message. ;^) That way, when the list archives are posted on a
webserver, email harvesters crawl away empty handed.
Perhaps the 'lister code should scan and remove email addresses (other than
the list address, obviously), or replace them with something like:
nameATdomainDOTcom
-- Ed
[11/11] from: maximo:meteorstudios at: 14-Jul-2003 11:59
good point.
let's not be the instigators of our own spam...
At work, you see, I receive less than one spam per month... I guess that's why I still
like e-mail ;-) every hotmail address I've had though, gets replaced after a few months
though...
for spam, isn't there a (or several) server(s) which lists universal offending servers
(which do bad things like mail forwarding) and a list of spam mail addresses...
When I was mail admin, I could access these and get a huge filter of who not to accept
mail from... the server would get a refreshed list each day (or everytime you wanted)
and your own server could send new confirmed spammers to that list so that it would be
shared amongst the others using the filter... isn't all of this still functional ?!
or are the lists too exhaustive, now, slowing servers... I was using SLmail server...
-max